Included within the blueprint for the Eugenicists Brave New World, it is now apparent that as Rh negative bloodtypes have an ‘issue’ when having children with Rh positives, it means we should now be targeted, as it appears that being Rh Negative is somehow classified as a ‘disease’….
My question is, when did being different, or having certain ‘traits’ mean a person should be classed as having a disease?
Spina Bifida, Hemochromatosis and people with Downs Syndrome also appear to be viewed as being ‘Harmful to their families and the wider society to which they belong.’
The shape of things to come?
“While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics and culture, there is at this point no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable.”
Would eugenic manipulations that reduce the propensity for risk-taking and violence, for example, in a population lead to their extinction?
On the other hand, there is universal agreement that many genetic diseases, such as Tay Sachs, Spina Bifida, Hemochromatosis, Downs Syndrome, Rh disease, etc, are quite harmful to the affected individuals and their families and therefore to the societies to which they belong.
Eugenic measures against many of the latter diseases are already being undertaken in societies around the world, while measures against traits that affect more subtle, poorly understood traits, such as risk-taking, are relegated to the realm of speculation and science fiction.
The effects of diseases are essentially wholly negative, and societies everywhere seek to reduce their impact by various means, some of which are eugenic in all but name.
‘The other traits that are discussed have positive as well as negative effects, and are not generally targeted at present anywhere.’